|
| Cooperstown Bound?
|
In the wake of Gary Sheffield's 500th home run, St. Petereburg Times' writer John Romano has a different, power-hitting native son in mind:
As numbers go in baseball, it is hard to beat 500. It is large, it is round and it is historic. For as long as there have been home runs and legends, 500 was the spot where the elite all gathered. It was the dividing line between the great and the merely good.
As numbers go in baseball, it is easy to ignore 493. It is impressive but somehow feels incomplete. As if you got most of the way through a race, only to run out of gas on the final lap. There are no ovations, and no club for 493 members.
493 being the number of home runs hit by Fred McGriff, whom Romano believes to be more deserving of the Hall than Sheffield.
Is he? Romano makes some good points along these lines, particularly as it relates to the eras in which Sheffield and McGriff experienced their power hitting primes (McGriff from 1988-1994, Sheff from 1999-2005). And of course, Sheffield has some steroids associations that McGriff does not, though given the experience of recent years we probably can't say anything definitive about who took what, when, and for how long.
Based purely on numbers, Sheffield is a Hall of Famer in my eyes. Sure, there's the 500 homers, but there's also the 2,600+ hits, 1,600+ RBI, a career average near .300, and steroid-era stat inflation notwithstanding, he has a career OPS+ that places him alongside guys like Reggie Jackson, Duke Snider, Eddie Collins, Ken Griffey, Jr. and Harmon Killebrew. No, he's not as good as some of those guys -- and his defense is a liability on balance -- but he's a solid Hall of Fame candidate in my mind even if his surly reputation and steroid associations keep him from entering any time soon.
How about McGriff?
As Braves' blogger Mac Thomason concluded after a pretty thorough analysis a couple of years ago, McGriff is a guy whose stats don't pop out at you, mostly because of the relatively depressed offensive era in which he posted many of his best seasons. But despite that, he is in good company, statistically-speaking, with career numbers similar in many respects to that of Willie McCovey, Sheffield, Willie Stargell, Billy Williams, Eddie Mathews, and Ernie Banks. He was also always thought of as a good citizen and good teammate. Perhaps the biggest knock against him is that two of his biggest seasons were obscured by a trade (1993) and a strike (1994). Another fabulous season (1989) came when Robin Yount won the MVP by being just as good at a tougher defensive position. Not his fault, of course, but not having that one year in which everyone thought "OK, this guy is the best," will hurt him in Hall of Fame balloting.
My view: I think Sheffield and McGriff are both Hall of Famers. I find it interesting, however, that McGriff may very well be denied entrance because he had too low of a career profile, while Sheffield may be denied because he had one that was too high.
Leave a Comment:
Saving...
Sorry, but to us fans, anytime steroids is associated with any part of ones baseball career then they are automatically eliminated from Hall of Fame consideration. You cheat , you get caught, your done. It's that simple and irreversable. Those steroid guys cannot be allowed to taint true American Baseball history. Putting up honest numbers over ones career from good old fashioned hard work, fairness and love for the game like the original greats did can neber be erased by cheating shortcuts. If any ballplayer wants to beat the greats fair and square than bring it on and lets make some honest baseball history. Leave the cheater juice alone.
Please don't lump the entirety of baseball fans in with you by saying "us fans" as if there's no other viewpoint, thanks.
Please don't lump every baseball fan in with you by using the term "us fans", as if there's no other viewpoints besides yours, thanks.
I also suggest you look into the careers of the "original greats". Babe Ruth injected sheep testosterone. Ty Cobb was a notorious dirty player. Hank Aaron, Willie Mays, and Mike Schmidt uses amphetamines. The list goes on.
if mcgwire, arod, and the rest of the steriod users don't get in, neither will seffield.
Maybe McGriff should get in for just being clean.
Rick D., don't purport to speak for "fans." Some of us see the world in colors a little more complex and interesting than pure black and white. And some of us know the difference between "your" and "you're" and "lets" and "let's."
"good old fashioned hard work, fairness and love for the game like the original greats did" [many sics]
Which greats are those? The non-working, more or less indifferent-to-the-game Babe Ruth? The racist, totally-unconcerned-with-fairness Ty Cobb? The amphetamine-popping stars of the 60s and 70s? Yeah.
I was shocked to learn, when he retired, that not everybody saw McGriff as the slam dunk I did. He was one of the three or four best hitters of the five years leading right up to the offense explosion. He should be in. And Sheffield ought to be a no-brainer.
I saw this post linked on some other site, and I was sure that the "493" that he was talking about was Gehrig. And comparing Gary Sheffield to Lou Gehrig seemed downright silly to me. But now that you point out that he's talking about McGriff, and you think about the Crime Dog's numbers, it's different. He did put up some pretty good numbers and was a well-loved guy on some winning teams. And he was unlucky enough to have his peak right before the offensive numbers went off the charts, so that people might consider the mid-to-late 90s as his contemporaries when it should really be the late 80s.
But you also have to consider that he did get some benefit from the late 90s offense and that's the only reason he's so close to 500. How many home runs did he hit between '96 and 2000? and how many would he have hit if it were still 1992? Basically, I'm wondering if he should be compared to Eddie Murray, who pretty much hit all his home runs in the "deflated" era, or to Gary Sheffield, who got most of his in the "inflated" era. If you compare him to Sheffield, then he should get in (assuming Sheff does), but if you compare him to Murray, then maybe not. At least if you're judging by homers alone. McGriff did have a lot going for him, so while he may not be the shoe-in that Murray was, he definitely deserves at least the consideration that Sheffield is going to get. I'm just afraid that he won't get it.
Man, I hope that makes sense...
Hey Bill, If you have been keeping up with the general history of baseball fans during the unfortunate steroid history, most generally agree with my tyope of assessment. Also, Racism although wrong, never added much bodybuildider size to to a ballplayer or 80 extra feet to the home run distances and "greenies" or diet pills were most always used in the past to stay awake in order to last through the day (double headers ect.) hardly to be compared to steroids and GH. Ask any of the steroid guys if they really wants to be a true baseball great, why don't they try greeenies, not work, be indifferent and become racist? Then it wouldn'y be cheating and they woud be counted the true baseball roalty.......Not a fair comparison Bill. Apples and Oranges.
I think Sheffield and McGriff deserve to be in too, but I don't think they will go in. Neither is as deserving as McGwire, Tim Raines, Bert Blyleven or Alan Trammell, and we know how that's turning out.
Rick -- the only problem with your assessment is that it assumes that we know who did steroids and who didn't. Until A-Rod's thing, everyone was saying that he was clean. The Mitchell Report is littered with guys you'd never expect to be roiders. At the same time, there's no hard evidence that, say, Sammy Sosa did roids though most of us assume he did.
So what you're saying is that you only want to bar the people who were caught doing PEDs, not the ones who actually did them, because you don't know the identities of those people for certain and neither do I.
If you dispute this, please then, list for me the players who have not done steroids and tell us the evidence upon which you base each player's inclusion on the list.
Sorry, that doesn't work. I'll bet you dollars to donuts that the Coop contains players who bet on baseball and players who took money to throw games. There are renowned galleries whose "Rembrandt" may well be a forgery. Only a fraction of crooks get sent to jail. That's the way the world works: you'll never catch 'em all. But you can surely come down on the ones you do catch.
Is anyone seriously trying to claim that the drug-pumped Michelin Men did less damage to the game than Pete Rose's gambling problem?
How can anybody who admitted that they were not performing up to potential so they would get traded EVER be considered for the Hall of Fame? Do yo forget the BS he pulled in Milwaukee?
Craig I agree with what you are saying but I just don't believe that baseball fans care that much about ballplayers that juiced if they ended up under the radar screen because they didn't put up great numbers. I personally can't name everybody that juiced or is juicing now but as you well know, there have been some of the biggest names in modern baseball out there that have been accused of and some have addmitted to using steroids and thereby cheating to beat people. It's the ones that are blowing all of the great, historical, revered records away by taking steroids and it's not fair. It's not fair to the fans and it's not fair to baseball history. Wouldn't be great if all these guys had not taken juice and did it the right way? Those guys tried to get sneaky and they got caught. I bet that they all wish that they could start over somehow but it's too late. They ruined allot. Go ahead and put then in the hall if you want but most fans will always have that asterisk by their name. I just wish that some young, honest, strong, basball loving farm boy would come on the scene, play 20 good years and blow away Bond's bogus record anf finally put him in his proper place.
Let's do a little time warp back a few decades. Does anyone really think that, if presented with the same opportunities that existed in the '90s and '00s, players from a generation or two or three would have not used PEDs? They were clearly already doing everything in their power to gain an advantage (spitballs, sharpening cleats, corking bats, amphetamines, et cetera and who knows what else). Why does taking some injections cross the line? Players of this generation are being crucified as if they are morally inferior to their predecessors, but its easy to see that this is mostly a factor of the environment.
Do I think PEDs in general are a bad thing for the game? Of course. But if I was a borderline major leaguer, borderline starter, or borderline star with the temptation of astronomical salary and legacy in the balance, I would be very tempted to do everything in my power to get over that line (especially seeing as PEDs were not explicitly banned for a time).
The idea of comparing today's players to yesterday's on a moral level or for "love of the game" is silly; both groups want and wanted to be the best players they could possibly be, rules or no rules. The only thing that has changed is opportunity.
Let's do a little time warp back a few decades. Does anyone really think that, if presented with the same opportunities that existed in the '90s and '00s, players from a generation or two or three would have not used PEDs? They were clearly already doing everything in their power to gain an advantage (spitballs, sharpening cleats, corking bats, amphetamines, et cetera and who knows what else). Why does taking some injections cross the line? Players of this generation are being crucified as if they are morally inferior to their predecessors, but its easy to see that this is mostly a factor of the environment.
Do I think PEDs in general are a bad thing for the game? Of course. But if I was a borderline major leaguer, borderline starter, or borderline star with the temptation of astronomical salary and legacy in the balance, I would be very tempted to do everything in my power to get over that line (especially seeing as PEDs were not explicitly banned for a time).
The idea of comparing today's players to yesterday's on a moral level or for "love of the game" is silly; both groups want and wanted to be the best players they could possibly be, rules or no rules. The only thing that has changed is opportunity.
The argument can be made to keep the most egregious cheaters out of the Hall, but when someone's behavior is in line with a majority or sizeable minority of his peers, his candidacy cannot be considered invalid. Records of yesterday may no longer be comparable to those of the current PED environment due to the evolution of modern science and technology. Let's rethink our statistical induction criteria perhaps, but not put players of a bygone era on an unattainable moral pedestal.
Like his quest for 500 home runs, I like to think of McGriff's quest for the Hall about the same way, just falling short. He's a good, but just not great ballplayer.
Sheffield on the other hand just gets in, in my book. First off, I don't take steroids into account. If they played the games, then the games and everything in them count. Until we start overturning World Series titles (and find a single team without a single steroid user to give them to), I think you can't nitpick players you don't like out of the game.
Second, both McGriff and Sheffield did have similar numbers in many respects, runs, hits, doubles, HR, RBI, hell I'll even take the below average Sheffield in the harder to play outfield at about the same as the only slightly below average McGriff at first base at about the same level. However, there are a few key areas where Sheffield was just better and that puts him over the top and into the Hall. Their numbers may have been similar, but Sheffield's were better, he had more runs, more hits, more doubles, more HR, more RBI and more walks. Sheffield could also steal a base or two, McGriff not so much. Plus Sheffield had a career 141 OPS+ to McGriff's 134. OPS+ is adjusted for era since it compares their OPS to the league average.
But there is a number where Sheffield's career totals were much less than McGriff's, strikeouts. McGriff struck out over 1800 times in his career, Sheffield only 1129 times. In this era of OBP and working the count, practically every hitter now walks, but Sheffield was one of the rare few who not only walked, but walked more than he struck out, and by a great margin. McGriff had 1305 career walks to 1882 career strikeouts — that's a pretty solid ratio. On the other hand, Sheffield had 1439 walks compared to only 1129 strikeouts. That's insane and when coupled with his other career numbers puts him in the Hall.
What about Wally Schang? Caught for four WS champions. Caught Bob Shawkey, Bullet Joe Bush, Eddie Plank, Chief Bender, Herb Pennock, Carl Mays, Babe Ruth, Waite Hoyt, Lefty Grove, Tommy Bridges, et al. Compare with longtime Hall of Famer, Ray Schalk. Old Timers Committee -- look into it!
Back in WW2 if a fighter pilot shot down 5 enemy planes he qualified as an ACE. If he only shot down 2 but lied about 3 is he still considered an ACE the same as the pilots that really shot down 5 without lying? The same reasoning goes for the guys who juiced/cheated to get the the 500 HR Club. You can't escape that fact. What do you think Bonds would say if you asked him now that if he had a choice , would he like to break Hank's record naturally or by juicing ? As far as Greenies, they don't help ypu jack 75 500' homers, steroids do that. Comparing to the past greats is necessary because they are the only examples for the fans to use and emulate. The old greats are the ones to beat and if you can't beat the past record setters at their own game hoestly or the way they did it, then the cheaters numbers don't hold any weight. On another note: I have read 6 books on The Bambino and the only sheep testosterone that the Babe injected was a big leg of lamb after belting a few homers.
How do you know players of the past weren't juicing either? We've known about steroids since the 1930, they've been used by Olympic athletes (that we know of) since the 1950's, and we have a recorded case of steroids being used in the NFL in as early as 1964. How certain are we that guys like Mickey Mantle, Willie Mays or Reggie Jackson weren't juiced? Hell, we know Mantle was an avid pot-user, another illegal drug. And do you think the calming affects of pot may have helped Mantle in the pressure cooker that was NYC?
Then on the other hand, just how legitimate were records by guys like Babe Ruth when they didn't play against any minorities? Think if we remove pitchers like CC Sabathia, Pedro Martinez, Mariano Rivera, hitters like David Wright may have it a bit easier?
That's just a startlingly poor analogy. The baseball players in question really DID hit all those home runs. If the pilot had taken an illegal stimulant to help him shoot down three of those planes and lied about it, is he still considered an ace? I honestly don't know or care, but I would guess so.
Mantle a pot smoker? I think your hitting it way too hard,where's your source? Call him a wino or bring up that injection he took in 61 that was suppose to be a antibiotic, when it may have been one of those B-12 shots doctors back then gave to everyone who felt run down. I have read almost everything written about him through out my life and never heard pot mentioned.
In a black and white world, I absolutely agree with Rick D. Unfortunately, we don't have definitive answers to all the questions we have as fans (the 103 names would help, though). Voters will have to use the civil court standard instead of the criminal court standard when deciding who to put in to the Hall. But who does and doesn't get into the HOF is not what's most important any more. What's important is keeping the game clean now and in the future. I've weighed in heavily on other discussions about this, and will leave this one alone. One thing that bothers me about this discussion is the comparison of either McGriff or Sheff to Gehrig, Ruth, Mays, Aaron or Cobb. These two, while NEAR the top of the game during their time, can only hope to get in at the bottom end of the club that was created for the others mentioned, who were absolutely AT the top of the game for all time. Whether or not they cheated to acheive what they did is something we may never know, but how we feel about it is, unfortunately, the deciding factor in what their legacy will be....
What about Sheff's new teammate, Carlos Delgado? His numbers are right in line with each of those two (OPS+138, right between McGriff and Sheff, with a pure OPS higher than both), and provided he can get to 500 sometime this season or next without significantly depressing his rate stats, he will arguably be a better player than either of them. He has never been significantly linked to PEDs and suffered from playing for a non-playoff team during his prime and, like McGriff, having a mind-blowing statistical season in a year (2000) in which another player (Giambi) had a marginally better season for a contender.
Scenario: 2 BillP312 clones have an arm wrestling contest. One BillP312 has taken steroids and the other BillP312 comes to the table for a fair contest. Which BillP312 wins?
I do agree with you about McGriiff though, assuming he is clean, he should get in.
Put him in the hall right after Bonds,Mcguire,Sosa and Palmero.He testified at some hearing that he used the clear,but he didn't know what it was.I didn't inhale either.
No